I. Neill Reid et al. 2002 The Astronomical Journal 124 2721 doi:10.1086/343777
I. Neill Reid1,4, John E. Gizis2 and Suzanne L. Hawley3
Show affiliationsWe have used new astrometric and spectroscopic observations to refine the volume-complete sample of M dwarfs defined in previous papers in this series. With the addition of Hipparcos astrometry, our revised VC2 sample includes 558 main-sequence stars in 448 systems. Analysis of that data set shows no evidence of any systematic kinematic bias. Combining those data with a Hipparcos-based sample of AFGK dwarfs within 25 pc of the Sun, we have derived the solar neighborhood luminosity function, Φ(MV), for stars with absolute magnitudes between -1 and +17. Using empirical and semiempirical mass-MV relations, we transform Φ(MV) to the present-day mass function, ψ(M) (=dN/dM). Depending on the mass-luminosity calibration adopted, ψ(M) can be represented by either a two-component or a three-component power law. In either case, the power-law index α has a value of ~1.3 at low masses (0.1 M
< M < 0.7 M
), and the local mass density of main-sequence stars is ~0.031 M
pc-3. We have converted ψ(M) to an estimate of the initial mass function, Ψ(M), by allowing for stellar evolution, the density law perpendicular to the plane, and the local mix of stellar populations. The results give α = 1.1–1.3 at low masses and α = 2.5–2.8 at high masses, with the change in slope lying between 0.7 and 1.1 M
. Finally, the (U, W) velocity distributions of both the VC2 sample and the fainter (MV > 4) stars in the Hipparcos 25 pc sample are well represented by two-component Gaussian distributions, with ~10% of the stars in the higher velocity dispersion component. We suggest that the latter component is the thick disk, and we offer a possible explanation for the relatively low velocity dispersions shown by ultracool dwarfs.
solar neighborhood; stars: kinematics; stars: luminosity function, mass function
Issue 5 (2002 November)
Received 2002 July 1, accepted for publication 2002 July 25
I. Neill Reid et al. 2002 The Astronomical Journal 124 2721
J. Davy Kirkpatrick et al. 2001 The Astronomical Journal 121 3235
M. F. Skrutskie et al. 2006 The Astronomical Journal 131 1163
John E. Gizis et al. 2001 The Astronomical Journal 121 2185
John E. Gizis 1998 The Astronomical Journal 115 2053
I. Neill Reid et al. 2001 The Astronomical Journal 121 1710
John J. Bochanski et al. 2005 The Astronomical Journal 130 1871
Conard C. Dahn et al. 2002 The Astronomical Journal 124 1170
John E. Gizis et al. 2003 The Astronomical Journal 125 3302
John E. Gizis et al. 2000 The Astronomical Journal 120 1085